Average requests rose to 10.3% of shares from 9.7% in Q1, but ranged widely (1.3%–38.1% at Blue Owl’s OTIC), Fitch said. Many requests were follow-ups from investors who were only partly satisfied last quarter. New inflows fell by about 56% on average, so most funds saw net outflows of roughly 3% of the prior quarter’s net asset value.

What’s concerning, for private credit, is that Fitch expects continued redemptions in the months ahead.

“With BDCs capping redemptions at 5% quarterly, unfulfilled requests will lead to persistent elevated redemptions for many firms in the coming quarters,” ratings agency Fitch warned,” the ratings agency said.

Same story, different structures

Bitcoin ETFs are liquid, exchange-traded vehicles, where outflows directly impact the spot price of BTC. Private credit BDCs are the opposite: illiquid, long-duration lending vehicles with built-in quarterly gates.

Still, the fact that investors rushed for exit in both at the same time does point to broader caution around liquidity and risk appetite.

Amid all this, energy markets continue to send risk-off signals, with the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve at its lowest level since 1983. So, if the energy market remains disrupted, the government now has significantly less buffer to flood the market with oil and keep prices lower.

Key Highlights

• Milwaukee Bucks forward Kyle Kuzma toured IBM’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center, sharing his quantum computing experience with his 1.3 million X platform followers.
• The tech giant clarified the laboratory visit wasn’t sponsored — Kuzma initiated contact after publicly showing interest in quantum technology on social platforms.
• Wall Street consensus rates IBM as “Moderate Buy” with a $306.47 average price target; Bank of America recently upgraded its forecast to $330.
• Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Group decreased its IBM holdings by 3.8% during Q1, divesting 91,570 shares, while institutional investors maintain 58.96% ownership.
• The company announces Q2 2026 financial results on July 22; shares began Thursday trading at $302.18, declining 1.3% intraday.

International Business Machines enters earnings reporting season amid a distinctive convergence of events — including a high-profile facility tour, dividend increases, and active analyst coverage.

International Business Machines Corporation, IBM

Kyle Kuzma, who plays forward for the Milwaukee Bucks, recently explored IBM’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center and documented the experience for his 1.3 million X platform audience. He expanded on the visit through a Monday LinkedIn update, stating: “Quantum could end up being the foundation that expands what AI is even capable of.”

IBM informed Barron’s that Kuzma’s visit materialized after the athlete publicly demonstrated curiosity about quantum computing technology via social channels. Company representatives verified no financial arrangement supported the visit.

Shares commenced Thursday’s session at $302.18, registering approximately 1.3% decline during trading. This valuation positions the stock considerably below its 52-week peak of $332.46, while maintaining distance above the $212.34 annual low.

The technology giant schedules its Q2 2026 earnings announcement for July 22. During the previous quarter, IBM delivered earnings per share of $1.91, surpassing analyst expectations of $1.81 by $0.10. Total revenue reached $15.92 billion, exceeding the projected $15.60 billion and representing 9.5% year-over-year growth.

Wall Street’s Perspective

Current analyst coverage includes sixteen Buy recommendations and nine Hold ratings. The overall consensus classification stands at “Moderate Buy” with a $306.47 average price objective.

Bank of America elevated its price forecast to $330 in recent activity. Barclays commenced coverage during June with an “overweight” designation and $350 target. JPMorgan upgraded from neutral to overweight in late June, increasing its projection from $270 to $291.

Bearish sentiment exists among some analysts. KeyCorp downgraded to “sector weight” coinciding with JPMorgan’s upgrade. HSBC transitioned from “reduce” to “hold” during April, adjusting its target upward from $218 to $231.

Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Group reduced its IBM allocation by 3.8% throughout Q1, liquidating 91,570 units to conclude the quarter holding 2,348,360 units valued at approximately $569 million. Institutional investors collectively control 58.96% of outstanding shares.

Quantum Computing Enters Mainstream Consciousness

Kuzma’s facility tour represents another indicator that quantum computing technology is penetrating broader public awareness. A $2 billion federal government investment package materialized in May, accompanied by two executive directives addressing quantum advancement. IBM separately unveiled plans for an independent quantum chip manufacturing facility supported by $1 billion Commerce Department funding — an announcement that propelled the stock to its strongest weekly performance in over twenty years.

Kuzma maintains an established pattern of technology company visits. He toured Meta’s corporate headquarters in late June and recently shared photographs featuring equipment from Lunar Outpost, an emerging company holding a $220 million NASA agreement.

Industry analysts and quantum computing executives consistently emphasize that genuine sector validation originates from revenue-generating customers — not celebrity endorsements. Current end users predominantly comprise academic institutions and government agencies, rendering consumer-oriented publicity primarily a brand awareness strategy.

IBM additionally increased its quarterly dividend distribution to $1.69 per share, distributed June 10, up from the previous $1.68. The annualized dividend yield currently stands at 2.2%.

The corporation also introduced compact z17 and LinuxONE 5 computing systems this week, alongside unveiling Project Lightwell, an open-source security framework addressing software supply-chain vulnerabilities.

StarkWare co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson argues that quantum-safety for Bitcoin is more likely to arrive through ZK STARKs—especially when used to compress the huge signature data expected from post-quantum (PQ) schemes—rather than by simply expanding blocks or accepting slower throughput. He also suggested that Adam Back, founder of Blockstream, aligns with the core idea, though Cointelegraph reported no response from Back to its outreach.

The broader debate has resurfaced this week as Ben-Sasson also drew attention for a separate, contentious proposal on X: raising Bitcoin inflation to 4% annually. However, his technical case for ZK STARK aggregation rests on a concrete concern—PQ signatures are far larger than today’s ECDSA/Schnorr signatures—and the resulting trade-offs for network capacity and decentralization.

Key takeaways

• Post-quantum signatures are much larger than Bitcoin’s current signature schemes, potentially forcing major capacity changes.
• ZK STARK aggregation could compress many large signatures from a block into a much smaller proof, reducing on-chain data pressure.
• Simply increasing block size is an alternative, but it may raise costs for nodes and revive decentralization concerns.
• Bitcoin’s governance and Script limitations are the main bottlenecks for adding native STARK verification at the base layer.
• StarkWare’s roadmap points to a different approach via account abstraction, making post-quantum upgrades operationally easier on systems like Starknet.

The core constraint: PQ signatures don’t fit like today’s

Ben-Sasson’s argument starts with the mismatch between Bitcoin’s existing cryptographic footprint and the expectations around post-quantum schemes. Adding PQ signatures “by itself,” he says, does not make the chain quantum-safe in a practical sense; it introduces an engineering problem first: the new signatures are orders of magnitude larger.

According to the article, the current set of PQ signatures approved by the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are roughly 10 to 100 times larger than Bitcoin’s prevailing ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. The practical risk is throughput and verification overhead—one oft-cited concern is that a block could end up supporting far fewer transactions.

Ben-Sasson’s counterproposal is to move the bulk of that data off the chain and replace it with a compact cryptographic statement. In his view, the signatures for all transactions in a block could be aggregated into a single ZK STARK proof, which would be significantly smaller than including the original signatures. That, he argues, could preserve or even improve effective efficiency compared with a naive on-chain PQ upgrade.

“If they don’t allow for ZK STARK aggregation, then definitely it will be a very unfortunate move because it won’t really solve the problem … where the problem is ‘can everyone actually use Bitcoin?’” Ben-Sasson said.

“So for that you need massive scale. And for that, you need things like signature aggregation and just increasing the block size isn’t enough.”

Block size as the “simple engineering” fix—and why it’s controversial

One alternative Ben-Sasson acknowledges, via commentary from other experts, is increasing Bitcoin’s block size. The dispute is not about whether it works—it’s about the cost structure and the governance path.

Marin Ivezic, author of PostQuantum.com and founder of Applied Quantum, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin’s SegWit scheme reduced the impact of larger signatures by up to 75%. But Ivezic’s modeling of NIST’s ML-DSA-44 scheme (described in the article as having 2,420 bytes per signature) suggests block capacity could drop to roughly 500 to 700 transactions under those conditions—down from 2,500 to 3,000 “today.”

That figure is what makes block-size debates feel inevitable: if PQ signatures drive transaction sizes sharply upward, the network needs somewhere for that data to go. Yet, as the article notes, critics see block growth as a blunt instrument because it pushes more storage, bandwidth, and verification work onto all nodes. Over time, that can mean higher operating costs and potentially less hardware diversity—an outcome that opponents argue could shift Bitcoin toward centralization.

The article also points to Blockstream Research’s recent experiments compressing hash-based post-quantum signature schemes for Bitcoin. It cites SHRINCS and SHRIMPS, with “everyday” signatures said to be around five times larger than current Bitcoin signatures, and up to 40 times larger in recovery scenarios such as wallet resurrection. The implication is that even with compression, larger signatures remain a throughput challenge unless block sizes increase.

“Raising capacity natively is the simple engineering answer and the hardest governance answer,” Ivezic said. “We just don’t have time for those debates.”

Why ZK aggregation could matter more than capacity alone

The attraction of ZK STARK aggregation is not simply that it is smaller. It’s that it changes the economics of what must be stored and verified by nodes.

At a high level, ZK proofs let one side prove that some statement holds without exposing all underlying details. In the Bitcoin setting described in the article, a STARK proof could certify that the necessary conditions for multiple transactions—tied to signatures—are satisfied, without requiring the chain to carry the full set of individual signature bytes.

The operational claim from Ben-Sasson is that generating a proof for a single block is a job that likely needs to be done once (with optional redundancy), and that the proving hardware could be far cheaper than commercial mining setups. The article further notes that verifying proofs could be feasible on very modest devices, pointing to Lean Ethereum’s specification benchmarks—where proving equipment is described as potentially under $100,000 and verification could run on almost any equipment, even something like a Raspberry Pi.

Ben-Sasson also argues the momentum for ZK STARKs existed among early Bitcoin developers. He claimed that figures such as Greg Maxwell and Mike Hearn were “very bullish about ZK STARKs,” citing their belief that STARKs provide post-quantum security without trusted setup. In the article, he adds that he thinks Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr and Adam Back are aligning more with the idea, though Cointelegraph states it did not receive a response from Back.

One complication raised in the article is that Ethereum researcher Justin Drake has described a desire for Bitcoin to adopt Lean Ethereum’s ZK proof aggregation approach. However, political constraints might make that difficult to implement in practice—even if the technical path exists.

What would it take for Bitcoin to verify STARKs?

The question for Bitcoin is less about whether ZK STARKs are cryptographically credible and more about whether Bitcoin can verify them in a practical, acceptable way. That brings the discussion to Bitcoin Script and governance.

The article suggests a more politically pragmatic starting point may be re-enabling OP_CAT, an opcode Satoshi introduced and later removed. Ben-Sasson argues that if OP_CAT is enabled, it could unlock capabilities needed for STARK proofs and aggregation and thereby support post-quantum security.

Still, while OP_CAT drew attention in earlier months (as the article frames it, 12 to 24 months ago), it has “lost momentum” more recently. It remains a governance-dependent path, with Bitcoin’s deliberative culture cited as a key factor.

Beyond OP_CAT, the article mentions other proposals such as OP_STARK_VERIFY, an opcode-oriented idea designed to verify STARKs more efficiently on Bitcoin, and a concept called BitZip associated with Ethan Heilman. Heilman’s framing (as quoted in the article) outlines two broad routes: enhancing Bitcoin with general-purpose opcodes to support rollup-like constructions, or supporting STARKs at the consensus layer. He also referenced weaker aggregation schemes—like CISA (Cross Input Signature Aggregation)—as potential partial help.

Even if the crypto is strong, the practical gating factor is that Bitcoin Script cannot verify STARKs today. The article quotes Ivezic’s assessment that a base-layer STARK verifier is realistically a 2030s governance conversation, noting that consensus-layer changes carry far more surface area than small signature-related opcodes—even ones like OP_CAT that have already faced years of debate.

By contrast, the article highlights that other networks may find post-quantum transitions easier. It notes that Ethereum is targeting 2029 for post-quantum transition and that Solana has experimented with post-quantum signatures. For Starknet specifically, the article ties StarkWare’s three-phase quantum-secure transition to native account abstraction, which allows upgrades of underlying cryptography without forcing every user to migrate accounts manually.

“On Starknet, we have this big advantage that we have already native account abstraction and smart wallets, which means that nothing is enshrined so its very easy to upgrade the wallets and the infrastructure to be post quantum.“

The strategic implication, as Ben-Sasson presents it, is that post-quantum roadmaps on networks without flexible account layers could be “extremely hard,” while Starknet’s design choices reduce lock-in risk.

For Bitcoin readers, the next watchpoints are straightforward: whether any OP_CAT-related or STARK-verification discussions regain momentum, and whether the community gravitates toward aggregation-first proposals that preserve decentralization—rather than defaulting to block-size increases that may raise node burdens. The cryptography may be solvable, but Bitcoin’s ability to verify it at scale hinges on governance and Script capabilities.

UK Labour MPs are preparing to push for a permanent ban on crypto donations to political parties and candidates, arguing that recent allegations around Nigel Farage’s funding have underscored risks of undue influence in British politics.

According to The Guardian, the party is looking to overhaul existing donation rules after a March moratorium on crypto contributions was introduced and then prompted further scrutiny. The renewed push is linked to Farage’s resignation from Parliament and reporting that he received large “gifts” connected to the digital-asset industry.

Key takeaways

• Labour MPs are considering making the March crypto-donation moratorium permanent, moving from temporary restraint to a lasting rule change.
• The push follows Farage’s resignation and claims that he accepted millions in donations described as “gifts” from crypto-linked figures.
• UK lawmakers plan to review proposed amendments next week, potentially tightening political funding limits for digital assets.
• A by-election in Farage’s constituency will be triggered, but major parties reportedly plan not to run candidates, leaving the contest to voters.

A temporary ban becomes a permanent proposal

The legislative debate centres on the March moratorium on crypto donations, which was announced by the UK government as part of a broader effort to protect democratic processes. The government’s move included a cap on donations from overseas electors and a ban on crypto donations, framed explicitly around safeguarding the integrity of elections.

Labour now wants that crypto restriction to be extended beyond its initial window. The Guardian reports that MPs have tabled amendments aimed at turning the moratorium into a permanent measure.

Liam Byrne, a Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North and chair of the business select committee, is among the figures backing the changes. He argued that the scale of the alleged inflows—cited in the report as “$268 million”—could fuel a wider political media ecosystem that benefits populist movements.

In a post on X, Byrne reiterated his view that stronger donation safeguards are needed, linking the current push to evidence of how crypto-related money could intersect with political influence.

Farage’s resignation reignites the funding controversy

Farage announced his resignation on Tuesday, following reporting about contributions he accepted while serving as MP for Clacton. He said the UK parliamentary standards commissioner was investigating the donations, while maintaining that he “did nothing wrong.”

The allegations described in the reporting include a $6.7 million “gift” from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne and additional support—such as staff, security, transport, and accommodation—linked to George Cottrell, described as a convicted fraudster connected to a crypto casino.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted Farage’s resignation was tied to the controversy over crypto donations and gifts. That resignation is expected to keep the issue at the top of the UK political agenda, particularly as Labour seeks to lock in lasting limits.

What Labour MPs want to change—And why it matters

Under the reported plan, Labour lawmakers intend to consider amendments to the representation of the people measures next week. If adopted, a permanent crypto donation ban would represent a significant tightening of rules around how digital-asset wealth can flow into electoral politics.

For investors and builders in the crypto economy, the practical implication is straightforward: policy risk around political funding could shift from a temporary, trial-like restriction to a durable compliance requirement—one that may influence how crypto-linked businesses think about political engagement in the UK.

It also changes the timeline for uncertainty. A moratorium implies a watch-and-review period; a permanent ban implies long-term regulatory expectations. Market participants typically price in policy duration, and longer-lived restrictions tend to reduce the odds of sudden rule reversals—either tightening further or reversing course.

There is also a governance angle. Labour’s framing, as reported, focuses on democracy-protection rather than market conduct. That means the next step for observers is not just how the crypto donation ban is written, but how enforcement is handled and whether standards investigations evolve into broader election-law reforms.

By-election dynamics and the leadership question

Farage’s resignation automatically triggers a by-election in Clacton. He told constituents that “the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,” according to the reported coverage. However, the major party landscape is expected to be unusual: The Guardian reports that Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Greens will reportedly not field candidates.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has described Farage’s move as a “desperate stunt,” a characterization that signals the political conflict around the donation allegations is likely to remain sharply contested.

Separately, a potential political leadership transition could affect how quickly Labour pushes the crypto donation issue through parliament. Earlier this week, a week-long window reportedly opened for Labour MPs to nominate candidates for the party’s next leader, who would also become prime minister if Labour wins.

Cointelegraph previously noted that Andy Burnham—a Labour MP and former mayor of Greater Manchester—has been positioned as a contender following Starmer’s resignation. As mayor, Burnham backed the idea of making the city a “Web3 powerhouse” and supported using digital technology for economic development.

If Burnham secures enough support to win the leadership contest, he may face immediate pressure to address both the proposed crypto donation ban and broader questions about how UK regulators oversee crypto activity, including the Financial Conduct Authority’s role.

What to watch next

Next week’s consideration of Labour’s proposed amendments will be the key milestone. Observers should watch whether the party’s push results in a permanent statutory ban on crypto donations and, equally important, how any enforcement mechanisms and parliamentary standards findings develop around the Farage-linked allegations.

Key Takeaways

• Secondary market valuations place Anthropic at $1.2 trillion, representing a 550% surge year-over-year
• Investor appetite dramatically outweighs available shares, with current shareholders reluctant to part with equity
• Special purpose vehicles facilitate the majority of transactions, despite the company’s official disapproval
• OpenAI’s secondary market standing now sits at $908 billion, trailing its competitor
• A confidential IPO filing was submitted to the SEC by Anthropic in early June 2026

The artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, creator of the Claude AI assistant, has achieved a staggering $1.2 trillion valuation in secondary market trading. This milestone positions the company as the world’s highest-valued private artificial intelligence venture, surpassing its primary competitor OpenAI.

This remarkable $1.2 trillion valuation marks a 550% climb compared to the same period last year, as reported by Javier Avalos, who serves as cofounder and chief executive of Caplight, a platform specializing in private secondary market transactions.

Avalos characterized Anthropic as representing “the most sought-after company the venture secondary market has ever seen.”

Limited Supply Creates Transaction Bottleneck

While investor interest remains extraordinarily high, actual completed deals remain surprisingly scarce. Glen Anderson, who heads Rainmaker Securities as CEO, verified that transactions are indeed occurring at the $1.2 trillion valuation mark, though successful closings happen infrequently.

“The demand outstrips the supply in Anthropic so much that it’s rare to get a trade done because no one’s selling,” Anderson told Business Insider.

Since neither Anthropic nor OpenAI trades on public exchanges, interested investors must navigate secondary markets to acquire ownership stakes. This requires finding employees or early-stage backers willing to liquidate their positions — a challenging endeavor given most stakeholders prefer to hold.

Some eager investors have resorted to extraordinary measures in their pursuit of Anthropic equity, including proposals to trade residential properties in exchange for company shares.

Special Purpose Vehicles Dominate Trading Activity Despite Corporate Resistance

The transactions that do materialize predominantly utilize special purpose vehicles, commonly known as SPVs. These financial structures aggregate capital from numerous investors to execute a single unified transaction.

Anthropic has taken a firm public stance against this approach. The company’s official website includes a clear warning: “Invest at your own risk: if someone offers you a way to participate, even on an indirect basis, in an investment in Anthropic, assume that it is invalid.”

Avalos additionally highlighted that SPV arrangements frequently carry substantial fees that buyers must absorb.

Anthropic’s most recent formal capital raise, a Series H round finalized in late May 2026, established the company’s valuation at $965 billion. Current secondary market pricing of $1.2 trillion represents a significant premium over that official figure.

OpenAI, which maintained valuation superiority over Anthropic for an extended period, currently trades at $908 billion on the Caplight platform.

This valuation divergence between the two AI leaders also manifests in their latest primary funding rounds. OpenAI secured an $852 billion valuation following its March 2026 financing, while Anthropic commanded $965 billion in its Series H.

Investor enthusiasm for OpenAI had experienced a relative lull until recent developments. The company’s launch of its GPT-5.6 model family, featuring the premium “Sol” model alongside the cost-effective “Terra” variant, has sparked renewed purchasing interest, Anderson observed.

Regarding the comparative demand between the two organizations, Avalos estimated approximately five potential Anthropic investors for every two seeking OpenAI exposure.

Anthropic submitted a confidential initial public offering prospectus to the Securities and Exchange Commission in early June 2026. Company representatives have indicated that the ultimate timing for any public market debut will be determined by prevailing market conditions.

Technology giant Sony’s online banking unit said it received conditional approval to establish a U.S. national trust bank subsidiary to support the issuance and management of dollar-denominated stablecoins.

The planned unit, Connectia Trust, National Association, will be based in New York and capitalized with $40 million, according to a Sony Financial Group announcement. Sony Bank will own 100% of the subsidiary.

The move comes as stablecoin usage is surging. Transaction volume hit a $1.79 trillion record last month, 63% more than in May and more than double the year-earlier level, according to Visa’s onchain dashboard.

With dollar-pegged tokens accounting for more than 99% of the total $311 billon market capitalization, according to DeFiLlama data, it may be a difficult market to crack.

Not only do market leaders USDT and USDC alone account for about $250 billion of the total, competition is increasing. A wave of potential rivals has also won conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for federal trust-bank structures tied to stablecoin businesses, including Stripe-owned Bridge, Paxos and Circle Internet.